Comment from Roland
Philips, editor: RP has read 2/3rds of script and so far
it is a straight account of Goebbels based on his
Diaries. If the finished script is non-controversial and
accepted by outside experts, we will probably
publish.

If it is
'unacceptable' we will
reject.

4. Future
Contracts

We have turned
down Roosevelt's War and will not publish Irving
again.

I am afraid it looks
like I won't get anywhere near Cavaye Place this side of the
New Year. I hope you have a good Christmas and let's try to
meet up soon after!

Meanwhile, two
points:

1) Quite a number of
people have recently commented unfavourably to me about
Macmillan publishing David Irving following on from recent
TV appearances in which (they say) he used his authorial
status to lend credence to racist politics.[*] I
think I have mentioned to you before that I have had the the
occasional complaint but people are beginning to say to me
(including an Oxford Professor of Politics) that they would
be more inclined to publish with us if we were not
publishing Irving.

2) I have been reading
Karel van Wolferen's interesting Enigma ofJapanese Power which seems to be quite widely
used on courses. Should you decide at some future stage that
it is no longer viable in Papermac, do please let me know
before reverting rights!

* This was quite untrue. There
had been no such appearances or remarks by Mr Irving; Macmillan
Ltd have declined to identify to him the "Oxford professor"
mentioned in the next sentence. From external sources it
appears to have been a Professor Peter Pulzer.

Many thanks for your
note of 6th December, and apologies for delay in replying.
I've been away.

1. David Irving. We have
one more book under contract from Irving, and will have an
expert reading of that that when it is delivered before
going ahead with publications. We have turned down many
other proposals from him and have no plans to continue
publishing after the forthcoming book. If this helps you to
reassure any prospective authors we are happy for you to say
it (although not too publicly if possible); it is true to
say that when Macmillan took him on (and the current book
contracted) he was not nearly as extreme as he is
now.

2. I will remember your
interest in Karel von Wolferen, but will say that it is
extremely unlikely that we will be reverting
rights!

Letter from Dr John Fox to The
Daily Telegraph published
on April 18, 1996:

Sir,--

Rabbi Schmuel Boteach of Oxford University's L'Chaim
Society somewhat judiciously tries to distance himself from
those in the Anglo-Jewish community who have described the
former Gert-Rudolf Flick benefaction as having been
'tainted' (report, April 17).Nevertheless, his suggestion
that Dr Flick's money should have been used to finance a
chair in Jewish studies underlines the very point about the
hypocrisy rampant in some sections of the Anglo-Jewish
community on this matter. If the Flick money was supposedly
'tainted' for a Chair in European Thought, surely, it would
likewise be 'tainted' for a Chair in Jewish Studies.However, the Flick
controversy has implication for other matters of academic
freedom and the freedom of expression in this supposed
democracy of ours, and the extent to which some narrow
sectarian interests seem intent on dictating what ther est
of us should put up with or even think.The controversy immediately
reminds one of how in the late 1980s Wolfson College in
Oxford was 'forced' to cancel its invitation to Ernst Nolte
to lecture there, because Nolte's views about the origins of
Adolf Hitler's anti-Jewish exterminatory policies were not
what some sections of the Anglo-Jewish community wanted to
hear.Likewise, in 1991,
on behalf of
a Jewish academic body, I was asked to exert
direct pressure on Macmillan to stop its reported
publication of the Goebbels
biography by David Irving.I refused, not because I
agree with Irving's denials of the Holocaust, - I don't -
but because this seemed an unethical and immoral attempt to
deny him freedom of speech [...]

Dr John Fox, London, SE12

David
Irving's complaints to Macmillan
Ltd
about their Treachery

Letter
from David Irving to Ian Chapman, Managing Director of
Macmillan Ltd.

London, November 11,
1997

Dear Ian,

I am as you know an author of books formerly
published with modest success by Macmillan Ltd. Until 1991
we main-tained cordial relations. I have learned of a number
of things which thereafter occurred behind closed doors at
your firm which must give cause for alarm to any author,
regardless of his views.

1. Steven Kennedy noted in December 1991 that people
were putting pressure on Macmillan to cease publishing my
works, including an Oxford Professor of Politics. Since you
have seen fit to make all our private mutual correspondence
available to third parties, without consulting me or
inviting my consent, would you be so good as to identify the
people and professor mentioned above, for the purposes of
litigation. There is surely no need for me to subpoena these
details?

2. In July 1992 my own editor Roland Phillips, in
response to outside events, gave secret instructions to one
Ray Fidler to destroy all remaining copies of my editions of
The War Path and Hitler's
War, around 1,300 volumes all told. I was
never told of this. (Mysteriously, no order was given to
destroy my Rommel
biography). A few days later one Amanda Tolworthy confirmed
that the order had been carried out, in the best Nazi
fashion, and the books had been destroyed. I shall invite
the newspapers, in due course, to draw some obvious
parallels; here I shall comment only that your firm's action
not only deprived me of royalty income but was a violation
of my contractual right of first refusal when there is any
question of disposing of remainders, inflicting actual
financial loss upon me. Please inform me by return of post
how you intend to redress this issue. I reserve all my legal
rights accruing from our author's agreement.

To be frank, I believe that in 1991-2 your firm
behaved in a shameful manner, unworthy of your great
name.

Letter
from David Irving to Ian Chapman, Managing Director of
Macmillan Ltd.

London, December 14,
1997

Dear Mr Chapman,

You responded swiftly, on November 12, to the letter
of November 11 in which I expressed my astonishment at my
discovery that the Macmillan company secretly and
precipitously destroyed all copies of my highly praised
biography of Adolf Hitler, for whatever reason, one day in
July 1992 without informing me. A month has however passed
since then, with no further word.

2. You indicated that you were going to have the file
retrieved to enable you to investigate this scandalous
affair. I was puzzled to hear that the file was off site, as
it is evident that your firm recently and secretly, and
although under no compulsion to do so, made available the
entire file of your firm's correspondence with me, your
author, to my opponents in a major libel action which I am
bringing, without any indication to me that you were
proposing to do so. (I have of course nothing to conceal: it
goes however to the root of publisher/author
relations).

3. It may well be that your firm found itself in July
1992 faced with ugly outside pressures which you were not
minded, or able, to withstand. But the people of this
country - including my father - fought two world wars to
preserve our freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, and
it is shocking to see a firm with your great name so idly
casting those values to the winds. Your action in destroying
these books amounted to a substantial breach of contract,
and I am advised that, under both that heading and others, I
have grounds to claim substantial compensation. Please
regard this therefore as a letter before action. Let us hope
however there will be no need for me to take the seemingly
inevitable next steps.

Letter
from David Irving to Ian Chapman, Managing Director of
Macmillan Ltd.

London, December 21,
1997

Dear Mr Chapman,

Further to my recent two letters, to which I am
awaiting a full answer with mounting curiosity, it now seems
on the basis of further evidence which I have seen unlikely
that we shall be able to reach agreement without litigation
on the damage inflicted by your company's extraordinary
decision to destroy all copies of my books without informing
me.

I have incidentally received also several letters
which had until now puzzled me, like the enclosed, from fans
and readers world-wide who have tried unsuccessfully to
write to me c/o my books' publisher, namely your firm
Macmillan Ltd. Somebody in your company has been refusing
without explanation to forward these letters to me as
author, and sending them back to the correspondents. Since
several media companies received similar rebuffs, this too
has inflicted loss on me.

I attach particular importance to an answer to one
query in my letter of November 11, namely: "Steven Kennedy
noted in December 1991 that people were putting pressure on
Macmillan to cease publishing my works, including an Oxford
Professor of Politics." May I once again request the
identity of this illiberal academic gentleman? Would it not
have been more proper and honourable to refer such critics
either directly or indirectly to me as your author and
invite my comments on their criticisms?

[Manuscript PS to effect that since I am
aware of a 6-year limit for simple damages claim I shall
not show undue patience]

Letter
from David Irving to Ian Chapman, Managing Director of
Macmillan Ltd.

London, December 23,
1997

Dear Ian

Thank you for your very full letter of December 22,
which shows that you are taking this matter as seriously as
I do. I do not accept your arguments, and you probably do
not expect me to.

I am taking High Court action against two sets of
defendants, as you may know (Penguin
Books & Deborah Lipstadt; and
The Observer &
Gitta Sereny). In the course of these actions,
which have both reached the stage of Discovery, and
elsewhere, certain papers have come to light. In particular
the lawyers acting for The Observer & Sereny have
obtained copies of substantial numbers of original private
letters passing between yourselves and myself, and of
internal Macmillan memoranda.

These documents are, under the rules of the Supreme
Court, still privileged until they are introduced into
court, at which time they come into the public domain. That
being so, I would prefer to discuss my complaint personally,
and I would suggest a meeting with yourself or your legal
representative as soon as possible after your return on
January 6, to which I will bring the papers to which I am
referring. This will enable you to prosecute your own
inquiries. Notwithstanding what you say about Macmillan's
policy, prima facie it would appear that Roland Phillips or
your predecessor Ms Rubinstein turned over copies from your
firm's files to outsiders, with the intended consequence of
damaging me; but I may be doing them a grave injustice by
even suggesting this possibility.

For my part I shall now challenge the defendants'
lawyers to identify the provenance of these documents, which
may bring us further in this unfortunate matter.

Letter
from David Irving to Ian Chapman, Managing Director of
Macmillan Ltd.

London, January 13,
1998

Dear Ian

I am sorry not to have heard from you after my letter
of December 23. I am enclosing, in confidence, one of the
items of which I have become aware, and you may understand
my sense of rage at your predecessor. I expect that as an
honourable publisher you will share my sentiments. I think
it would be undesirable, given the circumstances, for an
author to be given no recourse other than through the courts
against one of this country's leading publishers.

Such an action would inevitably prove very costly. I
can tell you, again in confidence, that, since our last
letter, the defendants in one of the two High Court libel
actions I have brought have approached me with a view to
ending the litigation by settlement, rather than face the
ruinous cost of continued court proceedings (they already
face a legal bill of over £100,000).

Letter
from David Irving to Ian Chapman, Managing Director of
Macmillan Ltd.

London, January 22,
1998

Dear Ian,

Can I take it that you will be making a substantial
reply to my letter? I have heard nothing from you since your
return from the New Year leave. I am consulting legal advice
on Monday afternoon, and it would be good to avoid having to
issue proceedings which would bring the whole matter (namely
the steps taken by Macmillan in 1992 to hound one of their
own authors and secretly burn thousands of his books) out in
public.

I expect that you will by now also have completed
your inquiries into how your confidential files were
delivered into the hands of third parties with this
unfortunate outcome.

You will be interested to hear that the defendants in
one of the actions I am bringing in the High Court have
approached me with a view to a settlement.

Letter
from David Irving to Denton Hall, lawyers acting for
Macmillan Ltd.

London, January 31,
1998

Dear Sirs

Macmillan Ltd

WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

Thank you for your letter of January 26 in the above
matter. While conscious of the provisions of RSC, O.24, I am
confidentially enclosing a copy
of the index to that part of the Discovery in
another action which reveals the evidently extensive
compromising of your client's internal records which has
somehow taken place.

I would ask that you in the first instance confirm
that there is prima facie no case of the documents' having
been forged. (I say this, as at least one of the other
documents in the Discovery in question turns out to be
counterfeit).

I have copies of all these documents in my possession
now.

I see no reason why these documents will not all come
into the public domain under O.14, r 14a, in the normal
course of the litigation in which they have been
discovered.

Yours sincerely,

David IrvingFOCAL POINT
PUBLICATIONS

Denton Hall5 Chancery LaneClifford's InnLondon EC4A 1BU

Letter
from David Irving to Ian Chapman, Managing Director of
Macmillan Ltd.

London, February 2,
1998

Dear Mr Chapman,

Thank you for your letter. Meanwhile you might like
to send to Dentons the enclosures which I found last night
while preparing my file on the case. All rights in at least
one of the volumes which made up Hitler's
War had reverted to me before the extraordinary
1992 incident - which included the right to expect that a
publisher would not do the dirty on his own author behind
his back! You will also find the scurrilous Mr Phillips
assuring me that of course I would continue to be offered
all remainders (note his wording!); not, of course, that it
is true to describe the victims of this Book Burning as
remainders - they were sacrificed on the altar of God Know's
What, at a time when the book was enjoying perpetual heavy
sales.

Of course my complaint, if it comes to one, will not
merely be about destroyed remainders, but something rather
more serious.

Letter
from David Irving to Denton Hall, lawyers acting for
Macmillan Ltd.

London, February 7,
1998

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter of February 2. I am glad
that a firm of, as my colleagues have given me to
understand, your well known reputation for fairness are
representing Macmillan; this should enable us to reach a
swift resolution of this matter.

2. Given that the putative cause of action accrued in
July 1996, notwithstanding that I learned of the "injury"
only last year, any limitation period on my claim might be
held to expire in July of this year; you will appreciate
that I cannot allow matters to drift out of time, but might
well have to issue a holding writ before then.

3. You ask for a copy of the Macmillan file to which
I refer. With regard to some of the documents, I find myself
in some trepidation, given the provisions of the rules about
discovery, although there can hardly be any contempt in
publishing a document to the party which first authored or
received it (Macmillan or yourselves as their agent). May I
however first invite you to give me what would seem to be a
proper undertaking in this case, namely that mindful of the
spirit of the above-mentioned rule you will not disclose to
parties other than the authors any such documents which I
provide. Once the documents are read out in open court, of
course, this problem is removed: O.24, r 14a).

4. In case Macmillan have not yet forwarded them to
you, I meanwhile invite your attention to a few pages to
which the above strictures do not apply.

Yours sincerely,

David IrvingFOCAL POINT
PUBLICATIONS

Denton Hall5 Chancery LaneClifford's InnLondon EC4A 1BU

Letter
from David Irving to Denton Hall, lawyers acting for
Macmillan Ltd.

London, February 19,
1998

Dear Sirs,

Your ref SMG/cc/1233657.01/18990.00024: Macmillan
Ltd

Thank you for your letter of February 12. On the
basis of the undertakings implicit in your letter, not to
show these documents to others than those who originated
them, I am enclosing copies of a few of the papers which
particularly disturb me.

They show your client as going behind my back, under
nameless pressures from outside, to destroy the position of
trust which I had established with them as an author of many
years' standing; then issuing secret orders to destroy all
remaining copies of my works, with the result that I lost
substantial continuing royalties, was deprived of the
reputation and prestige deriving from the continued
publication at a time of particular controversy for me, and
was also robbed of my rights, both contractual and implicit
from all our previous contractual relationships, to purchase
from your clients all such books due for remaindering or
destruction (as explicitly confirmed by Mr Roland Phillips
in a letter to me only shortly before this disgraceful
episode.)

At the same time, which puts a particularly nasty
"spin" on the episode, these same people were writing me
oily and ingratiating letters and even inquiring when they
could expect to see my next book! Thank God I took the
decision only weeks later to retrieve all rights from your
clients.

Yours sincerely,

David IrvingFOCAL POINT
PUBLICATIONS

Denton Hall5 Chancery LaneClifford's InnLondon EC4A 1BU

Letter
from David Irving to Denton Hall, lawyers acting for
Macmillan Ltd.

London, March 3,
1998

Dear Sirs

Your ref SMG/cc/1233657.01/18990.00024: Macmillan
Ltd

It is now two weeks since I supplied those few
documents to you. I shall cease to pursue this matter, and
as I am shortly leaving for the United States I shall find
it necessary to issue the writ which I mentioned in an
earlier letter unless I hear from you very soon, as I do not
intend to allow this matter to fall into abeyance. I take a
dim view of this clandestine censoring of an author's works
- particularly mine - by weak-kneed and faithless
publishers, and I am confident the British public will be
scandalised too.

The losses to me, of whatever nature, that I have
incurred through Macmillan Ltd's actions, which were
carefully concealed from me at the time, have been
substantial. Please inform me of the current registered
address of your clients in this matter. I ask, not only for
the obvious reason, but because the firm has several times
changed the registered address in recent years.

Yours sincerely,

David IrvingFOCAL POINT
PUBLICATIONS

Denton Hall5 Chancery LaneClifford's InnLondon EC4A 1BU

Letter
from David Irving to Denton Hall, lawyers acting for
Macmillan Ltd.

London, March 8,
1998

Dear Sirs,

Macmillan UK Ltd SMG/cc/1266447.01/18990.00024

Your letter of March 6. Under the special
circumstances of this case I am reluctant to provide to you
at this stage more documents than I have already, which are
in my view adequate to indicate the substance of my
complaint against your clients: namely that, succumbing and
surrendering in a most shameful manner to outside pressures,
they took unilateral actions to violate their covenants and
contracts, by secretly and without informing me - like the
Nazis of 1933! - destroying, at the insistence of outside
parties, all stocks of my wellknown and highly
praised biography of Adolf Hitler, with all the
consequences that flowed from that action in terms of loss
of material benefits and prestige to myself.

Instead of acting in their author's best interests at
all times - and I was hardly a new author, having published
works with them for some ten years - they acted in this
manner.

The proper procedure under which further documents
will be disclosed is under O.24, if it becomes necessary for
me to commence High Court proceedings against your client,
which I intend to do very shortly, given that the present
climate of opinion seems to be somewhat against seemingly
reputable publishers taking such secret actions under
outside pressures.

Yours sincerely,

David IrvingFOCAL POINT
PUBLICATIONS

Denton Hall5 Chancery LaneClifford's InnLondon EC4A 1BU

Letter
from Denton Hall, lawyers acting for Macmillan Ltd., to
David Irving

In spite of our requests, you
have refused to provide a complete bundle of the
documents which you say were passed by our client
to a "third party". We assume that the "third
party" to which you refer is the solicitor acting
on behalf of the Observer. You have refused to
provide those documents even though we have offered
to raise this issue with the Observer on the basis
that, as you yourself accept, there appears little
reason why copies should not be provided to us,
given that you say they are Macmillan documents.
You will appreciate that the few documents you have
sent to us need to be read in their context and to
ask us to comment on them otherwise would not be
helpful to you. In those circumstances we find it
curious that you have not agreed to provide the
full bundle of documents. We can only surmise as to
your motives given that the conclusions you have
sought to draw from the few documents you have
provided are unsustainable when those documents are
read in context.

As a result of your refusal
to forward the documents to us, we have contacted
the solicitors for the Observer and they have
confirmed to us that the documents they obtained
from our client, if not provided voluntarily, would
have been subpoenaed. In circumstances where
documents can be subpoenaed, it is not unusual to
provide copies of documents without that formality
being required. You clearly understand both the
purpose of subpoenas, and the fact that they are
not always required before a party will provide
documents, as demonstrated by your letter dated 11
November 1997. Furthermore given the matters which
are the subject of your case against the Observer,
we question that you can be surprised that the
documents have been disclosed.

2. Alleged Contractual
Rights

The substance of your
complaint against our client is however that copies
of Hitler's War and The War Path were destroyed in
breach of contract depriving you both of royalty
income and of a contractual right of first refusal.
The allegations are denied. We deal with each of
the works in turn.

3. The War
Path

3.1 The agreement relating to
The War Path dated 2 March 1983 ("The War Path
Agreement") came to an end in March 1991. The War
Path Agreement was concluded with Michael Joseph
Limited and granted rights for publication of the
paperback. Therefore to the extent that any rights
do accrue under the contract (which is denied), it
is Michael Joseph Limited that has the right to
pursue those remedies, not yourself Needless to say
our client has received no complaint from Michael
Joseph Limited.

3.2 Your letter to Macmillan
dated 26 July 1990 states The War Path was written
between1963 and 1973 and
indicates that you had revised (inter alia) The War
Path. You complained that Macmillan continued to
publish an "obsolete" edition, which was the only
edition it had the right to publish. The fact that
Macmillan's edition was old and that the new
edition was available in Germany, Spain and at that
time was soon to be available in Italy, France and
"other countries" would have contributed to the
downturn in sales in the old edition. It is hardly
surprising therefore that sales had reached the
level they had by the time the contract concluded
in 1991. Furthermore, in circumstances in which a
revised edition had been published, even if
Macmillan had the rights to continue to publish,
the market for the "obsolete" edition was of course
non-existent.

3.3 We have a copy of your
letter to Tim Whitfield at Michael Joseph Limited
dated 11 December 1991 confirming that the rights
to the original editions had reverted to you and
that you had published the work (we assume the
revised work) yourself. It is clear therefore that
you were aware the contract had come to an
end.

3.4 In July 1992 after the
contract had expired, remaining copies of The War
Path were pulped. The contract had come to an end
and you were not deprived of any royalty income nor
was there a "violation of your contractual right of
first refusal", as there was no such contractual
right.

Hitler's
War

4.1 The agreement relating to
Hitler's War dated 25 March 1983 ("Hitler's War
Agreement") was concluded with Hodder &
Stoughton Limited and granted to Macmillan the
right to publish the paperback. To the extent that
any rights do accrue under the contract (which is
denied), it is Hodder & Stoughton Limited that
has the right to pursue those remedies not yourself
Our client has received no complaint from Hodder
& Stoughton Limited.

4.2 Your letter dated 26 July
1990 referred also to Hitler's War and it is
apparent that you had revised that work as well,
that the old edition was "obsolete" and that the
new edition was being sold abroad. By that time,
sales of the Macmillan edition were
small.

4.3 On 8 August 1990, Hodder
and Stoughton confirmed that the hardback rights in
Hitler's War reverted to you subject to any
sub-licences. A manuscript note dated 11 August
1990 on the bottom of that letter, says that you
propose that unless Hodder & Stoughton can sell
the new "Hitler's War" hardback to publish it
yourself "and offer Papermac (Macmillan) reprint
rights perhaps?"

4.4 Whilst Macmillan retained
the paperback rights, sales had been decreasing for
some time and the work had ceased to be
remunerative. This is no doubt because as you have
admitted, the edition was "obsolete", a revised
version having been prepared by you. The rights
were reverted to Hodder & Stoughton in
accordance with the contract and this was advised
to Hodder & Stoughton at the time. The
agreement did not provide any contractual right of
first refusal for stock. Remaining copies were
pulped in June 1992.

Opportunity to Purchase
Stock

5.1 We refer to the letter
dated 1 October 1990 from Roland Philips to you
indicating that if books are remainded the author
is given first refusal to purchase those books.
Whilst that does happen particularly where
Macmillan has a direct relationship with the
author, that practice is not invariably followed
nor is it a contractual right. You neither had a
contract with Macmillan for either work nor did the
contract with the hardback publishers in each case
include such a right. If it was something Macmillan
agreed to do contractually, it would of course be a
term of the contract. It was not.

5.2 We refer to a letter from
Macmillan to you dated 16 July 1992 (copy
attached). That letter sets out the then available
stock and prices and indicates that you would
receive an author's discount if you chose to
purchase. We do not have the correspondence
surrounding this letter (and we would be grateful
if you would send it to us from your files) however
it is consistent with the fact that you did of
course have the opportunity to purchase stock
whilst Macmillan had stock.

Goebbels
Contract

6. As you are aware Macmillan
did have a contract to publish the Goebbels
manuscript however, by your own admission, you were
making slow progress with the manuscript and
indeed, you knew that Macmillan were concerned
regarding the lateness of the manuscript. As you
are aware, in the end, the book was cancelled by
agreement and although it was agreed that you would
return the advance, Macmillan did not (after
failure to pay back the advance) pursue it from
you. Macmillan reserves its right to do
so.

Publishing
Considerations

7. You have asked who the
"Oxford Professor" is who commented upon the fact
that Macmillan published your works, in
circumstances where, as you could not deny, your
opinions had become, since your work was first
published by Macmillan, extremely controversial.
You will be well aware from your dealings over the
years with publishers that publishers must come to
a view as to whether publications will be
successful. If they did not do so, they could not
survive in business. In circumstances where
complaints and comments were received particularly
in and around 1992 when your views
became

increasingly controversial
and to some people unsustainable, not only is it
likely that Macmillan's view was that your work
would become increasingly uncommercial but,
furthermore, that simply by publishing your work,
Macmillan's ability to attract and keep other
authors may be compromised. We deny that any
criticism can be levelled at Macmillan for taking
these issues into account in deciding whether
publication of a particular work is
viable.

Furthermore, you refer on
many occasions in your correspondence to the
reversion of your rights and to the possibility of
buying back the rights to your works particularly
following the commercial success of publishing
Hitler's War under your own imprint, Focal Point.
This you were happy to do, for example, with the
Goebbels work.

Yours faithfully

DENTON HALL

On
January 5, Mr Irving asked Macmillan to produce
the complete file to him for his inspection. On
March 1, 1999 Denton Hall replied refusing. Mr
Irving responded:

1. Not only have your clients [Macmillan
Publishers Ltd] wilfully and recklessly made
this file available to a third party, namely the
opponent of their author (myself) -- their
entire file of correspondence with and about
that author -- without his consent, for that
opponent to use in libel litigation brought by
their author, but they are now refusing to make
substantially the same items available to their
author either on the same terms or on any
other.

2. It is plain from the documents
I have seen and brought to your attention that
your clients were brought under pressure in 1991
and 1992 from third parties to revoke and
violate their agreements with me and with other
publishers relating to my books. Your clients
secretly destroyed all my books, under that
pressure, without informing me. I am litigating
against those parties and their agents. When the
first case -- which Mr Justice Morland
has set down for a twelve week hearing on
January 12 -- comes before the High Court,
Macmillan's part in these events will be
subjected to due and proper scrutiny. If your
clients elect to wait until a sub poena
is served, so be it.